Il 18/04/2013 01:03, Andrew Honig ha scritto: > I don't have a significant objection to freeing the memory in > kvm_arch_free_memslot, although I think it's a little harder to > understand. I like the idea of being symmetric (memory is allocated > by calling kvm_set_memory_region and freed using the same technique). > That way if someone changes from vm_mmap to something else it will be > obvious that they need to change both. > > Also, it looks like your patch is based on something several commits > behind HEAD on virt/kvm/kvm.git, Yeah, it was just whatever version I had checked out on the laptop. :) So that maintainers can look at both approaches and see what they prefer. Gleb, Marcelo, wdyt? Paolo > which significantly affect your > patch. In the HEAD version it assumes that user_alloc is always set > unless it's a private memslot. This appears to already have been the > case and allows a bunch of simplifications, some of which would apply > to your patch. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
